Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Karl Junk
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
After cashing the clubs I play 6 in trick 10. If East follows with a lower card, I win with the ace and duck the next trick, hoping West is allowed to win it and is endplayed. If East produces T or 9, I duck and hope that West does not realize that East is endplayed if he, West, does not win trick 10, or West has no higher card. If East plays J, I duck, and he is endplayed for sure.

Considering the auction I strongly believe that the K is owned by East, as otherwise West would be really too strong for the 4 bid.
May 30, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just 2 days ago pair #35 arrived 5 minutes late due to a traffic jam, and was able to play as a rover starting in round 2 of a web-movement. Bridgemates were already enabled when they arrived. After entering the rover movement the software automatically transferred the new movement to the bridgemates.
April 14, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In this thread, the question what the UI suggests was heavily discussed, and the majority of the text contributions concluded that pass was suggested over 6, and therefore the score should be set to 6-1. Only few posts mentioned that at the table 12 tricks were made.

Of course there are hands were the best single-dummy-defence is different in a slam contract compared with a game contract. But in order to determine if this is the case in this deal, we need to take a closer look.

First, it should be mentioned again that some facts in the OP were wrong, and corrected by John Miller somewhere midthread. The important changed fact regarding this question was that the first lead was and not . This was acknowledged by Sylvia Shi. She also clarified in some other post that the misinformation had been corrected before the first lead.

Now what would the defenders have played differently if the contract was 6? I cannot find any reason why West might lead something else than the he did lead against 5. What would East lead after winning the second trick with a honor? K and A in Dummy mean that these suits are pointless. The play in trick 2 can only mean that declarer wants to ruff clubs, so the only choice is a trump in trick 3 in order to prevent one ruff. I cannot see how the contract makes any difference when having to decide about that.

If East really played trump in trick 3, no 12 tricks are possible. That means that East must have lead some other suit but in trick 3. No matter what this suit was, the result is always 12 tricks for the declarer without any difficulty.

It is beyond my imagination why a trick that defenders failed to win in the 5-contract should be transferred to them in the assumed 6-contract. This is a little bit different if the lead had been K, as against 6 Wests Q might have been the setting trick. But after a -first-lead, only a trump is correct in trick 3, no matter what the level of the contract might be.
Feb. 29, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Scoring software can start the BCS program and set the Bridgemate options, so that there is no need to touch the Bridgemate Software manually unless some error occurs. The most popular German scoring programs offer this feature.
Jan. 20, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In my local club, results form other tables were shown in each and every pairs tournament. Before the bridgemates, paper travellers were used, and for sure people would have complained about the bridgemates if they did not show the scores.

By looking at the scores, sometimes an impossible result from other tables can be detected and corrected before the final result is computed, or a fouled board is discovered.

Players are discouraged to inspect the scores if the table finishes the round late, so nearly no time is lost by reading the score display.

Even if scores are not displayed, most players have an idea of how good or bad they have performed in the tourney so far. So showing the scores should not have a great impact on how they play in the rounds to come.

However, I would not like a provisional percent score, computed from all boards played up to now, to be displayed after each board.
Jan. 17, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Andy Bowles: “Basing an action on UI is always illegal. Merely choosing a logical alternative suggested by the UI is illegal if the UI came from partner, but not if it came from elsewhere.”

Very true. However, how do you find out what declarer thought? My opinion is, you cannot possibly find out. Even if you ask and get an honest response, the player cannot really tell what was going on in his neural network when he chose the 4 bid. But my bet is that the UI is always a parameter in the decision making process.

Roland Voigt: “Or would you adjust the score from 3NT to Av+ in favor of NS after they bid 3NT?”

Good question. Answer: Yes, I would, if declarer says he would have bid 4 without the UI but then felt restricted.
Jan. 3, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you chose option c in Law 16C2 and let them play, because you hope that the UI will prove immaterial, the player in possession of the UI is still restricted by Law 16A3: “No player may base a call or play on other information (such information being designated extraneous).” So if you judge that the UI was helpful finding the 4 bid, it was an infraction to bid 4 if there was a LA. The appropriate way to find out if some LA exists is a poll. You cannot reasonably establish what Shawn Drenning's call would have been without the UI, so he should get an ave+ if 3nt was an LA and yielded a scores less favourable than ave+.
Jan. 2, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The line stated in the original claim statement is a normal play as defined in the footnote to Law 70 and 71. Consequently, Law 71 does not apply, and the last trick originally conceded is lost forever.
Jan. 2, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It does not apply. But there is no alternative procedure specified in Law 16. So it is up to the TD to chose his own procedure when he executes Law 16C2c. As we have an UI, and the UI should not effect the result, the procedure specified in Law 16B1 seems the best choice to me, except that if it results in a score worse than average plus, I would award ave+ instead. According to the original poster this would not happen in this case.
Jan. 2, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I assume that by “next table” you mean the table where your current boards were played in the previous round. That you were able to understand anything that was spoken at that table means that probably the director poorly numbered the tables - the normal way to do this is to ensure that each table i is located far enough from table i+1 that overhearing something from there is impossible unless they speak so loud that everybody can hear it.

Of course the best thing to do is call the director immediately when you heard the “640”. If you did so, the director might have tried to establish to which board this number related and assign ave+ for both pairs for this board, and it is not played. If the director judged that this would have been his choice if called immediately, he should do just the same thing when you called him after the board was played, no matter what the result might be.

However, another option for the director would have been to allow all 3 boards to be played and determine afterwards if the “640” was relevant information for you at all, and if yes, if the information might have affected your bidding or play. I cannot believe that it is reasonable that your declarer play was influenced by the information, and certainly your 1 opening and your last 5 bid are unaffected by the information.

Concerning the 4 bid, the TD should have polled some players, in order to establish if 3nt or something else was a LA. If there is no LA, the table result should remain unchanged. If it is established that e.g. 3nt is a LA, then the TD should award a score of 3nt+x.

Of course, a procedural penalty for N/S at that “next table” is mandatory anyway.
Dec. 31, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Looks like I am missing something, but IMO non-vul 4xx+3 scores 1480, while 7nt= yields 1520. So it still depends on vulnerablity.
Dec. 29, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When East sees his partner bidding 4, he might think:

We have a fit.
My partner wants to play game.
Why did he pass before?
Does this bid create a forcing pass situation for me if opps compete?

(reading this aloud took me about 10 seconds)

When the 5 by North appears, he might continue thinking:

North has probably 5 cards.
Then my partner is void in .
My partner must have at least 4 cards, because we have at least a 9-card-fit when opps have a 10-card-fit.
If partner really is void and has 4 cards, why did he pass at this first call?
Opps have no Fit, so partner has at least 4 cards.
Maybe he delayed his first bid because of this holding?
His suit fits well with my KJ.
But maybe North is singleton or even void in and gets an immediate ruff in trick 1.
Though I have a clue what partner's distribution might be, I am still not sure if he bid 4 as a delayed preempt or if he really has values for game.

(reading this aloud took me exactly 1 minute)

By now East has not yet considered what to call, but only tried to create a picture of the other three hands.

So I think 30 seconds is about the minimum time East should take to think about this unusual situation, and West can infer nothing about East's hand because of this amount of time.
Dec. 27, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Boye, you and some other top players seem to believe that real bridge players play with cards and not on computers.
This sounds like
real journalists write on typewriters and not on keyboards
real Himalaya mountaineers need no oxygen
real car drivers navigate with maps on paper
real bridge tourney directors score with pencil and paper and need no computer to produce a leader board
real sailors need no GPS; a compass, a clock, the sun and the stars are sufficient for navigation
real Inuit ride on slates powered by huskies and avoid motor slates
paragliding is the only real way to fly
real car drivers avoid electrically powered cars because the sound of a combustion engine is missing

Apart from the argument that seeing opps is required in order to maintain the table feeling (which is solved with Fred's proposal), I failed to hear a reason why physical cards are really needed and why cards displayed on a tablet computer are not sufficient.

I am sure that the misclick issue can be solved to all players satisfaction by providing several ways how a card is played, and each player can chose the way he likes best.
Dec. 5, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If partner's call is delayed until RHO calls, you do not know how much time partner used and how long RHO thought.
Dec. 4, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Trying to defend oneself it ok. But threatening to sue others or indeed sue them for saying the truth is a crime in itself.
Nov. 9, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael Fleisher: “Can you predict a void without knowing the hand, based on video and bidding?”

You cannot, because there maybe times when they decide that the info is not relevant (e.g. void in opps' trump suit).

Or maybe they have special agreements for special cases, e.g. when bidding a splinter, small means void and large means singleton (Board 30 vs. Estionia)

However, I was not able to verify the hypothesis in the matches against Estonia, Monaco and Russia.
Oct. 7, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
BZ67: edge:edge:small:small:medium:small:small
BZ68: edge:edge
Oct. 4, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
BZ67, BZ68
Oct. 4, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
BZ63: edge:edge:small
BZ64: edge:edge:small:small:large
Oct. 4, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
BZ63, BZ64
Oct. 4, 2015
.

Bottom Home Top